As Novell re-introduces its Linux desktop, more open source advocates are beginning to believe that the call for widespread Linux desktop adoption is leaving the realm of zealotry and entering the mainstream. Whether this will be a watershed moment for the Linux desktop remains to be seen but, already, advocates for the open source OS are clamoring to explain why now - not in times past - the moment is right for enterprise-level corporations to begin migrating to Linux.

Which you've failed to address again by drivelling on about opensource and other irrelevant side shows - you've failed to address why an end user, with no technical knowledge, or desire for technology knowledge, should give a brass wazoo about opensource and the philosphical arguments behind it.

Sorry, if you haven't realised, computers do not sit at the centre of 95% of the general publics life, and they have even less of a 'give a shit' factor in regards to the philosophical rantings of a few obscure programmers who think that everything should be decided base don 'freedom baby, yeah!' regardless of whether the end customer has any interest in those arguments.

What the end user wants to know is this; what can your software do better than what is already out there; stick to that, and keep the amatuer philosophy long nights on the turps after a long day at the IT salt mines.

NoW I get You.. You do not understand because you do not want to understand ... LOL
You do not want to understand what you read because you do not agree with the free software movement. OK, guy, you can still use the free-open source soft, but stop f****ng arround!

you said:"you've failed to address again by drivelling on about opensource and other irrelevant side show why an end user, with no technical knowledge, or desire for technology knowledge, should give a brass wazoo about opensource and the philosphical arguments behind it"

No I havent, I answered your points clearly. I have never said something like that. It is all in your fanatic anti GPL-Stallman-Free-opensource thinking.

In fact I have said the opposite. What is, that you can do almost what you want with open source sofware an you do not need to give a damn about philosophy...

So, You can use it, modifiy it an sell it, add it to other software... but always according to the GPL Licence.

In case you haven't realisedn the propietary-closed software has also a licence in general, and you do not acuse it of having its particular legal aspects and philosophy too, ... (strange ;-) )

--- You said again (on and on...):"What the end user wants to know is this; what can your software do better than what is already out there; stick to that, and keep the amatuer philosophy long nights on the turps after a long day at the IT salt mines"

And I awnser you again, like in my former posts: The user does not need to know about that, if the soft is free in both meanings, he/she can just use it... Its easier and quicker than with the propietary soft.. LOL
If is commercial you have to pay for it like the commercial closed source one etc.

The legal aspects are in both open an closed source software and nobody needs to know about philoshofy to use it...
The legal aspects count only if you want to modify it and use it publically or sell it etc.

Do you know that propietary software have also a philosophy and legal status??
Maybe you do not know it, or you don't mind because you just simply make pirate copies and use it illegally...

You do not need to make pirate copies and use most of the Free-Opensource software illegally...

All that is in your paranoia anti Stallman, anti Free-open source...

Your acussations are pointless, and paranoic. Base on your own bias, a,nd could be applied to any kind of software. The law, economy, marketing are there for any kind of software...

About the quality, it's ok, That is a basic thing. Many FLOSS is as good or better than the propietary-closed software. Ther are also applications for specific use, that do not have an equivalent in free-opensource soft, but this is a question of time and evolution of the market...

Jesus Christ all bloody mighty! And again, you miss the point entirely <shakes head> where the hell did you get that I'm anti-stallman or anti-opensource? Angel--Fr@gzill@, are you one of those 'children left behind' which the 'no child left behind policy' missed?

> In case you haven't realisedn the propietary-closed
> software has also a licence in general, and you do not
> acuse it of having its particular legal aspects and
> philosophy too, ... (strange ;-) )

Unlike the GPL and other F/OSS licenses, these EULAs are illegal and thus pointless in many countries. People ignore them anyway.

> And I awnser you again, like in my former posts: The
> user does not need to know about that, if the soft is
> free in both meanings, he/she can just use it... Its
> easier and quicker than with the propietary soft..

The user can also 'just use' proprietary software. Which one is easier and quicker must be decided on a case-by-case basis. I have made the experience that the quality of F/OSS varies heavily (to both extremes) - just as proprietary software does. It helps a lot though if you don't confuse quality with the license, especially because normal users tend to choose software by quality and in addition by need, but much less by license.

> Do you know that propietary software have also a
> philosophy and legal status??
> Maybe you do not know it, or you don't mind because
> you just simply make pirate copies and use it
> illegally...

Yes, people do 'pirate' good or needed programs, that's why file-sharing programs were so successful. (BTW it still confuses me how the reproduction of information can be compared to murder, rape and destruction).